Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

B-17 vs Lancaster

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I doubt if fitting 50 cal guns to a Lanc would make any difference to losses.What's the stats for downed nightfighters due to Lanc gunners anyway??

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rogerwilko View Post
      I doubt if fitting 50 cal guns to a Lanc would make any difference to losses.What's the stats for downed nightfighters due to Lanc gunners anyway??
      Turbochargers and a pressurized cockpit might have been more useful than bigger guns. If the Lancaster could have operated above the ceiling of the typical German nightfighter - it might have made a bigger difference in losses - though possibly at the expense of bombing accuracy.
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #33
        Lancaster info

        Hi All,

        The Merlin XX engines used by the Lancaster were equipped with superchargers and the service ceiling of the Lancaster was 23500 feet. The B17G could go over 10000 feet higher.

        I'm reading a book right now, "Lancaster: The second world war's greatest bomber" (ISBN 978-0-7195-2363-2) and in it is described a project to fit increased armour plating to the aircraft to allow it to be used for daylight bombing. Bomber Harris wasn't in favour of the project and caused it to be abandoned.

        Best Regards,

        Paul.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rvsjimbo View Post
          and in it is described a project to fit increased armour plating to the aircraft to allow it to be used for daylight bombing. Bomber Harris wasn't in favour of the project and caused it to be abandoned.
          Paul, they did return to some daylight bombing again at the end of the war, when Luftwaffe fighters had been cleared from the skies.

          They also did it earlier on for precision raids against hard targets, since they were the only Allied aircraft with 33 foot bomb bays that could carry the specialist payloads needed to take out U-boat pens or V-weapon shelters.

          Corkscrews were a suggested manouevre - repeated zig zags with climbs and dives, that maintained course and altitude while consistently forcing a fighter behind to attempt deflection shots.

          The rear gunner would advise the pilot of whether to do a left or right manouevre, and as author Mike Sp1ck points out, 'The Lancaster could corkscrew very well even with a 12,000lb [Tallboy] bomb on board, while unladen it was extremely manouevrable for such a large machine.'

          RAF crews needed to use their plane in this way because Lancasters were optimized for long range, heavy bombing, and as you say were both unarmoured and without great defensive firepower.

          Of course, such manouevering would cause a bomber to break formation, which is what the attacking fighters would hope for.
          Last edited by clackers; 26 May 11,, 06:40.

          Comment

          Working...
          X